TTABlog Test: How Did These Three Appeals from Section 2(d) Refusals Turn Out?
By my count, the TTAB has affirmed about 83% of the Section 2(d) refusals it has reviewed on appeal this year. How do you think these latest three appeals came out? Results will be found in the first comment.
In re ZF Friedrichshafen AG, Serial No. 79322731 (May 18, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Angela Lykos). [Refusal to register KING OF THE ROAD for "Batteries; rechargeable batteries; electric batteries; vehicle batteries; car batteries; batteries for electronic cigarettes; battery boxes; battery jars; battery chargers" and for "Lighting apparatus for vehicles; lights for vehicles; lights for automobiles; lighting installations for air vehicles; lamps; electric lamps; light bulbs; light bulbs for directional signals for vehicles; light diffusers; LED light bulbs; lighting apparatus and installations, namely, lighting apparatus for vehicles and lighting installations" in view of the identical mark registered for "mirrors for land vehicles."
In re Falicie E. Dirosier, Serial No. 90074262 (May 18, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Christopher Larkin) [Refusal to register the mark shown below, for "Bar soap," in view of the registered mark MOOD SWING for "hair styling preparations."]
In re Nature Cravings Pet Treats LLC, Serial Nos. 90139331 (May 19, 2023) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Peter W. Cataldo) [Refusal to register BARKING BUDDHA for "Consumable pet chews; Edible pet treats; Pet beverages; Pet food; Pet treats in the nature of bully stick" in view of the registered mark BUDDHA BISCUITS (in standard form) for "Edible organic pet treats for dogs" [BISCUITS disclaimed].
Read comments and post your comment here.
TTABlog comment: How did you do? See any WYHAs here?
Text Copyright John L. Welch 2023.
posted by John L. Welch @ 5/26/2023
7 comments
7 Comments:
All three were affirmed.
No surprises there.
I finally got one right!
I'm with Unknown.
How did someone get WIFI registered for those goods? Over the years my reaction to many of these 2(d) decisions is that the blocking mark should never have been registered, and the applicant perhaps should file a petition to cancel, although some of these may have been registered for more than 5 years. I hope the USPTO is getting more rigorous in terms of registering marks like "WIFI" over time.
I thought the SETON HALL case could have gone either way because I was unaware of relatedness evidence. I guess I wasn't surprised to see there was some decent evidence to support relatedness, but wonder about available contrary evidence that might have been available but not proffered by the applicant. More specifically, the board readily dismissed the proffered evidence of the PRINCETON mark being used by separate parties for the distinct categories of services, but what if there had been 15 or 20 or more similar examples, say by digging into TMTKO's database. In other words, what if it was shown to be common to co-exist in the separate categories?
ESBJanuary, what is your issue with the Wi-Fi certification marks?
Post a Comment
<< Home